Posted
by
samzenpuson Monday September 01, 2014 @12:00PM
from the how-high's-the-water-momma? dept.

An anonymous reader writes with this bit of good news for everyone who is waiting for their homes to one day be on the beach. Melting ice is fuelling sea-level rise around the coast of Antarctica, a new report in Nature Geoscience finds. Near-shore waters went up by about 2mm per year more than the general trend for the Southern Ocean as a whole in the period between 1992 and 2011. Scientists say the melting of glaciers and the thinning of ice shelves are dumping 350 billion tonnes of additional water into the sea annually. This influx is warming and freshening the ocean, pushing up its surface. "Freshwater is less dense than salt water and so in regions where an excess of freshwater has accumulated we expect a localized rise in sea level," explained Dr Craig Rye from the University of Southampton, UK, and lead author on the new journal paper.

Actually, there is a lot to learn about the accusations of institutional racism in Silicon Valley here.

If you compare the demographics of both areas, the Arctic is predominantly "white" (polar bears), while the Antarctic is overwhelmingly "black" (penguins). Thus, if institutional racism was responsible, you would expect the Arctic to be rising faster. Since this is not the case, researchers are forced to search for a more scientific explanation of the observed behavior.

No, but they way the predictions have been used we have seen colder climate than the predictions for some decade straight now.Thats the problem with exaggerating. Eventually people get tired about someone crying wolf that they won't listen when the wolf actually shows up.In retrospect it had been better to underreport the climate predictions and adjusted as things turn worse rather than the other way around.

It's been pretty much every extreme you can imagine, with the vast majority of its time spent in states that would not support today's human population. To me, the collapse of civilization and the migratory patterns that would emerge with even a small shift in arable land patterns is pretty goddamn scary.

Do you think that Liberals would be successful at convincing 97% of climate scientists to take our point of view and the insurance companies too if this were bullshit? Yet, all these wiseass Conservatives are willing to take a risk with our frickin' planet just so they can jam a finger in the eye of their political rivals--ignoring the reality that has the potential to end life on the damned planet. In short, WTF is going on in the mind of Conservatives? How do you look at all these insurance companies and think: "It's a Liberal plot!" Can you be so stupid?

What I find most amazing is this: 97% of the best climate scientists we have on earth have concluded that we have a problem.

This is wrong, you read the poll wrong (maybe this one? [uic.edu]). Here is the part you misunderstood: 97% of climate scientists say man-made CO2 has an effect on the global temperature (and the rest probably clicked the wrong box on accident).

Do you understand that there is a difference between "having an effect" and "is a problem?" Because there is a huge difference, and the people answering the poll understood that there is a difference. Even scientists who are frequently labeled 'deniers' will answer yes to that poll, it's almost like asking a non-question.

So if a large proportion of these climate scientists don't think that doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration will cause problematic warming what (according to them) is causing the current problematic warming trend?

Can you link us to some of their published works so we can see and understand the underlying mechanism, plus some detail of the research re: new and apparently lower climate sensitivity and the alignment of this sensitivity with the historical climate record?

So if a large proportion of these climate scientists don't think that doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration will cause problematic warming what (according to them) is causing the current problematic warming trend?

Do you understand the logical fallacy of "loaded question?" Look it up, because your question commits that fallacy.

Most scientists accept that there's been some warming. How much of it is caused by CO2 is an open question, because the models need adjusting [ed.ac.uk] (though to be fair, the main difficulty is likely in over-estimating feedbacks). Scientists disagree on that problem, but the main question that matters from a practical standpoint is, "what should we do?" There's no consensus on this at all.

I thought you'd link to the sun engulfing the earth. By the time the climate's on the path to being Venus-like, we'd be knocked back to the stone age or worse, slowing climate change to a pace evolution might be able to keep up with. I'm sure some extremophiles would hang on at the very least.

We couldn't get knocked into a Venus-style runaway greenhouse effect. If we could, it would have happened, as earth has oscillated from nearly 100% carbon sequestration to nearly 0%. The earth apparently has better equilibrium seeking mechanisms than Venus had.

Some theories say that solar forced global warming will push us into a Venus-style runaway greenhouse effect in about a billion years. Once it gets hot enough to boil the oceans, it's game over (unless we, or a natural event, move the Earth out close to Mars)Solar theory says the Sun has gotten 25% brighter since the beginning and will continue to get brighter as it gets more dense due to having a larger portion of He. Venus being closer to the Sun experienced the oceans boiling thing at least a billion yea

97% of the best climate scientists we have on earth have concluded that we have a problem.

While I agree with your main point that there is a broad scientific consensus on climate change, the 97% figure is bogus. 97% of research papers on climate change that stated a position on whether AGW is real, took an affirmative stance. But this ignores the many papers that were non-committal, and stated no opinion.

By exaggerating the consensus, you are just handing ammunition to the denialists. The problem with convincing skeptics of the need to take action is not evidence (which is strong), but credibility (which is lacking). Please calm down and stick to the facts.

The insurance companies... have concluded we have a problem.

No. The insurance companies have concluded that they have a risk. They will charge more in premiums to compensate for even small risks.

Do you think that Liberals would be successful at convincing 97% of...

And here is the crux of the problem. "Climate change" has been politically associated with the "Liberal Agenda", and is being used to justify all sorts of economic nonsense that has nothing to do with climate change. I live in California, and "Climate Change" is being used to justify a $300 billion* boondoggle to build high speed rail between SF and LA. That is about $10,000 for every person in California, for a train that on a typical day will carry 0.03% of commuters. It will have zero impact on CO2 emissions because it won't be operational for 30 years, when it is likely most cars will be electric anyway.

*Yes, I know the current projected cost is $100 billion, but on average, government boondoggles in California eventually cost three times the original cost, so $300 billion is a more reasonable estimate.

The difference between calling it a "risk" and a "problem" is just semantics. The insurance industry is all about assessing risk. If they say there is no risk and they're wrong, they're out of business. If they charge for an assessed risk and their competitors don't, they're out of business. The insurance industry cannot afford to be wrong on either account. Either they pay for big losses or lose the premium income that is their life blood. Given all those factors, these companies--all of them--have decided

Quibbles about the opinions of the world's climate scientists are essentially not important.

Over the last few decades public support for climate changed action has declined dramatically [wikipedia.org]. Much of the reason for that is a decline in public perceptions of the credibility of scientists. Much of the reason for that is because of people that exaggerate, and then, when called out on it, insist that the actual facts are just "quibbles" and don't matter. The same happened with the first IPCC report. It contained exaggerations, and made false statements, and when those were pointed out, the response fro

I agree with you. It baffles me that people don't believe science. What can you do? I trust the scientific method and live in fear of misconduct by scientists.

I am not saying the science is unimportant. I am saying that the insurance industry offers concrete testimony that stands aside from those questions about the veracity of science. I am trying to stand outside those questions by using the bias of the business community against those who trust it. The same people who don't trust science do trust busi

97% of research papers on climate change that stated a position on whether AGW is real, took an affirmative stance. But this ignores the many papers that were non-committal, and stated no opinion.

Why, exactly, would you consider the papers that don't talk about a topic when considering whether there is a consensus of support for that topic or not? If you were seeking to see if a dog would make a good pet, how many books about orangutans would you read? Also, the Cook paper [iop.org] also clearly states what percentage of the papers took a position on climate change (32.6%) in the abstract.

According to your logic, we can lower the support level for any topic by simply including more papers that don't take a

Because it's an absolutely fantastic opportunity to make huge amounts of money from lots of poor suckers. Can you imagine it? No need for fearmongering ad campaigns; the politicians and activist-scientists do it for you. Scare everybody witless then sell them insurance.

It's such a brilliant idea I don't know why I didn't think of it before. Oh I remember now... I'm not a sociopath.

Here's the problem with that line of reasoning. If--as you say--the entire Climate Change thing is bogus and the insurance companies are using it to raise premiums--where is the free market? Where is the one insurance company bucking the crowd? Surely, if this is a big myth, there has to be at least one big insurance company willing to sell cheap insurance. They could make a killing, were it true.

The only problem with your theory is the missing contrarian. No insurance company is willing to buck the science. Not one.

I'm no AGW Denier... but I think you've struck an entirely different problem than you were aiming for. The illusion of free market. In reality, insurance companies largely operate as pseudo-cartels, with ad-hoc price fixing. No one is going to buck the crowd, they're going to play along with the rest of the cartel.

I'm sorry, but that's complete bullshit. Have you ever worked inside an insurance company? I have. They are intensely price competitive. Especially the re-insurance companies. There are very few and they all taking climate change totally seriously.

I'm sorry, but no it's not.
You could very well be correct that they take this very seriously, I'm not in a position to speculate.

However, they do function as cartels, and the free market does not serve to regulate ad-hoc price fixing schemes amongst them. Simply google "insurance cartels". Buy some books on the topic. Read some papers.

Again, I'm not denying that actuarially, climate change is a real coefficient. But the assertion that the free market would bring to light any kind of price-fixing scheme

Well, let's consider what you're saying. You are a second tier insurance company and you don't have that much premium income. According to what you're proposing, all the insurance companies have decided to act like climate change is a real danger so they can scam premium income--but since you're a second-tier company, you're not really benefitting from the "cartel" but you can't break it so you just accept that you're going to not really benefit from it much... to benefit the big boys... even though you all

Insurance cartels only exist in the USA.I just figured that car insurances in the USA are roughly 1000 time more expensive than in Germany, e.g. (considering the coverage)A guy on/. I talked to explained to me how much he pays and how less he gets out... hilarious.

You have no clue about anything you are talking about.The re-insurance companies are the biggest companies on earth. And they are the ones who muster right now the blows of Fukushima, Katrina, Sandy etc.Your standard USA 'cartel' (as you call it) insurance would be bankrupt right now if it was not reinsurance by e.g. "Muenchener Rueck" or "Zurich Reinsurrance"!

So, if this is a myth, where is the insurance company that's willing to keep their premiums low so they can scoop up all the business? Why isn't that happening? Surely--if as you allege all these insurance companies are faking this risk--where are the contrarians willing to sell cheap insurance? You haven't thought this through. If this were a myth then there would have to be at least one company willing to be the contrarian--and there are not any. The insurance companies have actuaries that have looked in

The myth is that price competition is the dominant method of acquiring market share. Bear in that most insurance markets are state-regulated, and if we limit ourselves to property insurers, rigidly regulated.

They are regulated on what they have to cover and the reserves they have to keep. They can set their premiums as they see fit. And the re-insurance companies are the most free. The fundamental weakness of that argument is the behavior of the re-insurance companies.

There is virtually NO property or healthcare insurance market that is state-regulated and is NOT rate regulated. Roughly half the state regulate auto insurance rates. Virtually all insurance sold to consumers is state - regulated in the U.S.

The concern of insurance commissioners in each of those states is that the insurers in their state remain solvent. You seem to imply that some artifical bias is pushing insurance companies to see risk where none exists. It's the direct opposite. The insurance commisioners are making sure that the companies do account for all valid risks, so they don't go out of business. The regulation is to prevent insolvency, not some do gooder desire to back global warming.

So are you really trying to suggest that corporate lobbying is pushing insurance companies to fake that climate change is real? Are you kidding me? There is real money on the table. Let's look at the companies with the real risk on the table: the Re-Insurance companies--the ones that backstop the primary insurance market: "No climate-change deniers to be found in the reinsurance business" [theglobeandmail.com].

These are huge corporations with shareholders and greedy owners. They don't screw around. They don't have to prove any

Jane,
Okay, to me it's very clear. The insurance industry is a balance of risk versus premium income. If they misjudge risk, they go out of business paying for huge losses. If they misjudge their premium rates, they go out of business because their insurance is too expensive. For that reason, all insurance companies have armies of highly paid actuaries who get fired if they are wrong about either risk or premium rates. Do you disagree with me so far?

Yes, as I have already explained in plain English, in response to your question about free markets.

If there is no free market in your industry (or not much of one left, anyway), then you don't get to claim free market forces would correct such imbalances. You're like those people who blame corporatism and "crony capitalism" on the concept of capitalism itself, when both of those things don't represent capitalism, but rather egregious deviations from capitalism.

Jane,
I will agree that the insurance industry is heavily regulated. They are regulated on the subject of capital reserves and what they must cover. But given my personal experience in this precise industry, I must say that you traffic in myths. On the subject of risk tolerance and premium rates they are not regulated and since this directly equates to their ability to survive, they do indeed enjoy a free hand in setting their premium rates and their tolerance for risk.

Yes, as I have already explained in plain English, in response to your question about free markets. No you did not. He has a valid question which you fail to address.So re-insurance companies are... what exactly? Part of the problem or part of the solution?

Jane, I will agree that the insurance industry is heavily regulated. They are regulated on the subject of capital reserves and what they must cover. But given my personal experience in this precise industry, I must say that you traffic in myths. On the subject of risk tolerance and premium rates they are not regulated and since this directly equates to their ability to survive, they do indeed enjoy a free hand in setting their premium rates and their tolerance for risk.

None of this has anything to do with what I said. You keep taking different ideas I have talked about and pasting them back together in ways that don't represent what I was actually saying.

I didn't say their risk assessments and premiums were regulated. In the health care arena they certainly are regulated now to some extent, but that wasn't my point at all. I was speaking of anti-trust regulation, not regulation of premiums or risk tolerance.

Yes, I did. I specifically answered his question. I am not responsible for your failure to understand my response, which was about why the market does NOT adjust for the factors he mentioned, if there isn't a real market.

Saying "market forces will drive them out of business", when the insurance companies today are nearly as oligopolistic as cable companies, is like saying "market forces" will force Comcast to invest more of their profits in infrastructure. If there isn't a free market, those market force

What are you talking about? Do you know shit about the insurance industry? It is intensely competitive. They are constantly at war over premium rates. They employ armies of actuaries to compare risk against premium prices. They are not charities--if they assess risk, they are convinced there is risk.

Okay, genius. You're saying that Global Warming is a hoax--and that insurance companies are all--across the board--raising their rates to take advantage of the alleged hoax.

Well, according to the free market, surely there must be at least one contrarian who is willing to buck the alleged alarmists and sell cheap insurance. If there were one big insurance company willing to do that--they could collect every insurance dollar on the planet and destroy the other companies. Why isn't that happening? Hmm?

The NIPCC Reports go to great lengths explaining exactly what the IPCC report on the same topic skipped over or misinterpreted.

Because, as we all know, an ideologically Libertarian political "think tank" funded by gas and coal owners is clearly the most reliable source of information on the effects of pollution released by the gas and coal industries and whether that pollution requires government intervention. There is absolutely no bias, no politics and no conflict of interest there [skepticalscience.com].

It's getting its compensation.....an Arctic Ice Cap that has expanded by 41% in the past 2 years. Most ice up there since 2006. Ironically, not reported here....I guess anything goes to advance the global warming scam.

Sure, it's expanded by 41% in the last two years. What you fail to mention is that 2012 was a record low.

It's getting its compensation.....an Arctic Ice Cap that has expanded by 41% in the past 2 years. Most ice up there since 2006. Ironically, not reported here....
I guess anything goes to advance the global warming scam.

It's getting its compensation.....an Arctic Ice Cap that has expanded by 41% in the past 2 years. Most ice up there since 2006. Ironically, not reported here....I guess anything goes to advance the global warming scam.

And yet it's still lower than any year in the satellite record before 2006. 2012 was so low it was outside of the 2 standard deviations range. 2013 and 2014 are near the bottom of the 2 sd range around the 1981-2010 average and back near the curve of declining Arctic sea ice. It will take another 5 years or so to see if there really is any recovery in Arctic sea ice but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

So much freshwater from melting glaciers that sea level isn't even level anymore, and some people still don't want to believe there might be a climate problem.

(I don't mean the people who question how to address the problem - that's still legitimately an open question - or the severity of the problem, I mean the people still in denial that there's a problem at all.)

So much freshwater from melting glaciers that sea level isn't even level anymore, and some people still don't want to believe there might be a climate problem.

(I don't mean the people who question how to address the problem - that's still legitimately an open question - or the severity of the problem, I mean the people still in denial that there's a problem at all.)

So if there's less ice, it's because of global warming. But if there's more ice, it's because of global warming.

Just curious, if global warming were not a thing, what would the ice caps be doing?

So if there's less ice, it's because of global warming. But if there's more ice, it's because of global warming.

Yes. There is less ice in some areas due to global warming and more ice in other areas due to global warming.

Think of it this way: Imagine the entire planet heated up by 20C, we wouldn't expect to see any permanent ice outside of Antarctica. (The North Pole might get some seasonal ice, but the much warmer oceans would melt it fairly quickly.) Now, with all of the oceans that much warmer, think how much additional water vapor would make it into the atmosphere. When the additional water vapor ends up over the South Pole, it will be cold enough for it to freeze and fall as snow. As the snow accumulates, it compacts into ice and we end up with a LOT more ice at the South Pole.

So: Less ice everywhere but Antarctica due to global warming, but a lot more ice in Antarctica due to global warming.

(And, yes; I do realize that this example is a vast simplification - and overstatement - I just used it to illustrate the point.)

Unless you already live in a place with such hostile climate that it could only improve, you don't actually know that things will be better for your location. And remember economic dislocations very far away can affect you.

So you're cool with the tropical diseases? You're fine with the world's forests all being unsuited for their environments because the growning zones have moved? You think climate change is something manageable? You're more of an idiot than I imagined.

Climate change "skepticism" is highly organized and well funded. It's a billion dollar effort. All those people who glibly tell you it's not real aren't skeptics at all, they're just kool-aid drinkers.

(I don't mean the people who question how to address the problem - that's still legitimately an open question - or the severity of the problem, I mean the people still in denial that there's a problem at all.)

Careful what you wish for - the next, and final stage in the evolution of climate denialism is for it to take a rather different, more difficult form:

A couple decades ago they figured out CFC's, specifically the chlorine in them, was making it really high up in the atmosphere, where it reacted with sunlight to destroy ozone molecules in an unending chain reaction. The thinning of the ozone layer, and even development of holes in it, was leading to increased UV radiation reaching the ground rather than being absorbed up there in the ozone layer. skin cancer rates were measurably increasing. These CFCs came predominan

Climate warming occurs naturally, it's historically been warmer before than it is now. So this was destined to happen sometime - why are you afraid of it now? The rise is still so gradual sea-side communities can still adapt, and overall rise is something like a foot and a half over 150-200 years. That's hardly anything to get worked up over.

It is amusing though to think you probably bought into the whole "global warming pause is because oceans are storing heat" story when we find from this story ocean temperatures are rising from glacial melt entering the ocean... which has to be affecting measured temperatures.

Just all around so much fear and total misunderstanding of what climate change actually means from the people who deny natural climate change exists...

No one (at least not anyone I know) denies that climate change through non-anthropogenic processes exists.

However, making the assumption that because there are non-anthropogenic processes that affect the global climate, anthropogenic processes do not exist, or are not relevant to the discussion, is like saying "well, since people die from old age, disease, lightning strikes, avalanches and landslides, that means that murder, auto accidents, arson deaths and the like do not exist."

If you have a source of melting fresh water, water around it will be slightly higher as long as the melting continues, as it takes time for the meltoff to mix with the rest of the ocean. It's just a 2mm difference over maybe a thousand km of sea (which is why the intuitive "should immediately even out" idea doesn't work) so I doubt you could make the same effect visible in a bathtub.

I don't know that I would expect a "waterfall", since that would imply a sudden edge. I would rather expect some sort of slope. And as long as there a source of new water flowing into the ocean, I would expect this slope to persist.